Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In a thread about the harm our agricultural policies cause, you interjected yourself and advised to ignore it and simply grow your own fruit and vegetables. You claimed that this would cause large agribusinesses who grow crap to go bankrupt, even when they receive billions in subsidies.
You are taking a schizophrenic stance when you say ignore the uneven and hefty subsidies and then claim that you are against subsidies.
There was a thread recently about what issues people of this country could broadly get behind that hopefully transcends party lines. This issue might seem like a really good candidate.
I am sure there is no shortage of people in this country will argue in favor of the subsidies until they are blue in their face and will employ every chicken little tactic they can, trying to convince everyone what will happen without such and such a subsidy, or a particular agricultural regulation that artificially steers production..... but these people would seem to be statistical outliers.
Is there anyone on this forum that would even justify these kinds of policies being eluded to in this thread?
----------------
While I do agree with the sentiment that simply telling people to exercise consumer control is not a substitute for addressing the subsidy problem [and certain other forms of regulations], it is perhaps just as inappropriate to not recognize the importance of exercising that consumer control. We have to employ the strategies available to us, and the most readily available strategy is for us to avail ourselves of that which is most easily within our control (e.g. not just controlling consumer purchasing very selectively, but also having an appreciation for the somewhat lost art/science of people producing some of our own food. Extreme division of labor has somewhat neutered most of society, as many have lost many of the skills which people had in previous generations).
Last edited by FreedomThroughAnarchism; 07-24-2011 at 03:20 PM..
Well growing your own food is a great idea and does help. Very empowering.
However, I think taking action in other ways is also good.
I do think people are unaware of the very serious harm of Big Agro especially. GMO foods alone have been shown to produce physical health problems. The stupidity there is they not only subsidize, but then don't even want to let you know about it being in your food. Seems like if they are so proud of feeding the world they would want to shout it from the rooftops.
I do read labels and nothing wrong w/ telling the grocery store or anybody else etc.. what you like and don't like.
What has crying about it done? NOTHING. If everyone stopped buying the garbage it would go away. Nothing to subsidize. Get it? Or sit around complaining about it and jumping folks for doing SOMETHING about it. Whats your secret plan to end subsidies? Do you have one? Do you do anything? I highly doubt it.
I see that this conversation is over. You continue distort and deflect your inanities. You claim that you are against these incredulous farm subsidies, but just want to ignore them. Additionally, anyone who disagrees with you is labeled as "crying" and must have a "secret" plan to eliminate them. I find your reactionary responses to be quite petulant.
What is my plan? To inform people and have a discussion on it. I would write to my Representative, but he shares my stance. The people who primarily do not share my stance are "free market, limited government" Republicans.
Here is the roll call for (H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have limited agricultural subsidies provided to farmers by making farms earning more than $250,000 per year ineligible for federal subsidies. Guess which party vehemently opposed it? http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll114.xml
Here is the roll call for (H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have limited agricultural subsidies provided to farmers by making farms earning more than $250,000 per year ineligible for federal subsidies. Guess which party vehemently opposed it? http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll114.xml
Yay, my representative voted for it! As usual, common sense is in the minority.
I see that this conversation is over. You continue distort and deflect your inanities. You claim that you are against these incredulous farm subsidies, but just want to ignore them. Additionally, anyone who disagrees with you is labeled as "crying" and must have a "secret" plan to eliminate them. I find your reactionary responses to be quite petulant.
What is my plan? To inform people and have a discussion on it. I would write to my Representative, but he shares my stance. The people who primarily do not share my stance are "free market, limited government" Republicans.
Here is the roll call for (H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have limited agricultural subsidies provided to farmers by making farms earning more than $250,000 per year ineligible for federal subsidies. Guess which party vehemently opposed it? http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll114.xml
No, KUChief is right.
The government can't make you eat bad foods. Even the poorest folks can afford to eat healthy. Now they can't eat as often, but it is enough to meet their nutritional needs.
The individual is to blame for health issues, not the government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
